Second appeal against concurrent findings setting aside a purchase certificate obtained from the Land Tribunal without impleading the true owner. Held that Section 125 KLR Act does not bar a civil suit where fraud or collusion is pleaded; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1946
RSA NO. 1280 OF 2011
AS NO.240 OF 2009 OF DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM
OS NO.334 OF 1994 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM
APPELLANT/ADDL.2ND APPELLANT/LEGAL HEIR OF DEFENDANT
2 P.N.PRAKASAN, AGED 47 YRS. S/O.NARAYANAN,PALACKAL VAYPEL,, MAVELLOOR KARA,VELLOOR VILLAGE,, VAIKOM TALUK.
BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.ARATHI KARUNAKARAN SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN SMT.NAZMIN ABDUL LATHEEF SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. JOBY JACOB T.V.HEMALATHA T.M.MOHAMED YOUSEFF (Sr.)
RESPONDENTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS/LEGAL HEIRS OF PLAINTIFF
RSA 1280 of 2011
2
PALACKAL VAYPEL HOUSE,MEVELLOOR P.O, VELLOOR VILLAGE, MEVELLOOR - 686 609.
4 KUMARI SIVADASAN, DO.SANKARAN PALACKAL VAYPEL HOUSE,MEVELLOOR P.O, VELLOOR VILLAGE, MEVELLOOR - 686 609.
BY ADV SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 5.6.2024, THE COURT ON 19.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA 1280 of 2011
3
C.R.
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
R.S.A.1280 of 2011 ----------------------------Dated : 19th June, 2024
JUDGMENT
RSA 1280 of 2011
4
the eastern side which were rented out to the defendant Narayanan for a monthly rent of Rs.2/-. Even after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff, the defendant continued as a tenant in plaint schedule item No.2 under the plaintiff. About 20 years back, when the above shop room collapsed, the defendant was allowed to renovate the same. In 1985, the rent was enhanced to Rs.30/-. The defendant defaulted payment of rent after February 1989. On 9.4.1994, when the defendant pulled down the shop room and collected materials for the construction of a new building, without the consent of the plaintiff, he filed a suit as O.S.No.180/94 seeking injunction against construction of new building and sought for some urgent reliefs. In response, the defendant contended that he had obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, Vaikom in respect of plaint schedule item No.2 property. Therefore, the plaintiff withdrew the above suit and filed the present suit. He had no knowledge about the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The defendant and Revenue officials colluded with each other, prepared a false report and mislead the Tribunal to get a purchase certificate. The real owner, namely the plaintiff, was not made a party in the above proceedings and the purchase certificate was obtained after playing fraud upon the Court. Vasudevan Sreekumaran Namboothiri, who was made as respondent in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, was not the owner of the scheduled property.
RSA 1280 of 2011
5
“Whether the suit filed for declaring Exhibit A3 purchase certificate as void is maintainable, when a specific Forum is provided under the Kerala Land Reforms Act for challenging the same ?”
RSA 1280 of 2011
6
on the ground that it was obtained behind his back and also that it was obtained fraudulently. The learned counsel for the defendant relying upon Sections 102 and 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (in short the KLR Act) would argue that specific forum is provided under the KLR Act to redress the grievance of the plaintiff, if any, and hence a separate suit in that respect is not maintainable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that since the defendant obtained the purchase certificate by playing fraud, a civil suit to set aside the sale certificate is maintainable.
7
RSA 1280 of 2011
provides for Revision to the High Court against the order passed in an appeal against order of the Land Tribunal or any final order passed by the Land Board or the Taluk Land Board.
“...........In Velappan v. Thomas, 1979 KHC 220: 1979 KLT
412: AIR 1979 Ker. 194: 1979 KLT SN 54 it was held that the Civil court can go into the question of validity of the order of the Land Tribunal when it is proved that the order was got by fraud or collusion. It was held that the ouster of jurisdiction under S.125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is limited to matters which are by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Land Tribunal and that a dispute which cannot be decided by the statutory authorities constituted under the Land Reforms Act can be decided by the
RSA 1280 of 2011
8
Civil Court under S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Velappan's case it was held thus:
'Now to wind up my discussion, the conclusion that I
arrive at is that the ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts contained in S.125(1) and (2) of the Act does not extend to questions relating to fraud and collusion. To reiterate what has been said before, most solemn proceedings can be vitiated if fraud and collusion are present. Both statutory and judicial recognition are available to this principle. To say that a Tribunal or statutory authority can hear a case involving fraud, to which fraud the authority itself is a party, is shocking to judicial conscience. To say that an order based on fraud or collusion cannot be challenged in Civil Court is to shake the foundation of our legal system. The Kerala Land Reforms Act cannot be deemed to lay down any such wide jurisdiction on the Land Tribunals. If the contention of the appellants counsel is to be accepted one will have to hold that orders of Land Tribunals upholding tenancy even vitiated by fraud and collusion and orders by which purchase certificates are issued, be it in the most unwholesome manner, are even above Art.141 of the Constitution of India. My considered opinion is that S.44 of the Evidence Act contains
RSA 1280 of 2011
9
inbuilt safeguards to salvage orders obtained by fraud and collusion.
10. The decision in Velappan's case was followed by Justice M.P. Menon in Sree Karikad Devaswom v. Wandoor Jupiter Chits (P) Ltd., 1980 KHC 111 : 1980 KLT 760, wherein it was held that Velappan's case, 1979 KHC 220 : 1979 KLT 412 : AIR 1979 Ker.194 : 1979 KLT SN 54 is an authority for the proposition that a court could declare invalid the order of a Tribunal or the purchase certificate issued by it.”
RSA 1280 of 2011
10
who appeared for the defendant that in this case there is no specific pleadings regarding fraud and hence the dicta laid down in the above decisions do not apply to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to the pleadings in paragraph 9 of the plaint and argued that there is sufficient pleadings regarding the allegation of fraud in obtaining Ext.A3 purchase certificate.
RSA 1280 of 2011
11
defendant along with Revenue Inspector conspired together, prepared a false report, produced before the Land Tribunal and obtained the purchase certificate by playing fraud upon the Court and without giving notice to the land-lord, those allegations are sufficient enough to raise the claim that the purchase certificate was obtained by playing fraud. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that in the plaint there is no sufficient pleadings to disclose fraud in obtaining purchase certificate is devoid of any merit.
12
RSA 1280 of 2011
fraud alleged against issuance of the purchase certificate in favour of the defendant.
RSA 1280 of 2011
13
adjudication of the dispute about tenancy or vesting by the Land Tribunal. Rule 10 deals with further proceedings for assignment and determination of compensation, purchase price etc. It was argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that the Land Tribunal passed Ext.A3 order after complying all these formalities and after giving individual notice to the affected parties and as such, the plaintiff cannot take a contention that he was not aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal.
RSA 1280 of 2011
14
cents in 615/4B. The property involved in Ext.A3 is 2½ cents comprised in sy. No.615/4B. The plaintiff was not made a party to Ext.A3. One Vasudevan Sreekumaran Namboothiri, Ampalappallil Vallyaillathu, Mevelloor, Velloor, is the sole respondent in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. The plaintiff produced Ext.A18 Thandaper account in the name of the above Sreekumaran Namboothiri, which shows that he had no property in Sy.No.615/4B. Ext.A1 sale deed not only shows that the plaintiff obtained 11 cents in 615/4B, but it also states that the defendant is in possession of the shops situated therein. It was in the above circumstance, the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court found that Ext.A3 purchase certificate of the Land Tribunal obtained without making the plaintiff as a party does not bind him and also that it was obtained by fraud and collusion. The above concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court on facts cannot be interfered with by this Court in Second Appeal. Since it is evident that Ext.A3 proceedings of the Land Tribunal was vitiated by fraud and collusion, the present Suit to set aside the same is perfectly maintainable and the bar under Section 125 of the KLR Act does not stand in the way of the Civil Court in entertaining such a Suit. The substantial question of law formulated is answered accordingly. No other substantial questions of law were raised by the defendant/appellant at the time of argument.
RSA 1280 of 2011
15
formulated, it can be seen that there is absolutely no irregularity or
illegality in the findings of the 1st Appellate Court so as to call for any
interference and hence this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
C.Pratheep Kumar, Judge
Mrcs/6.6.
RSA 1280 of 2011
16
APPENDIX OF RSA 1280/2011
ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 18-5-1976SUBMITTED BY VELLOOR VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE LAND TRIBUNAL Annexure 2 COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 5-10-1976 NO.1589/76 ISSUED BY VAIKOM LAND TRIBUNAL Annexure 3 LAND REGISTER OF THE PROPRITY Annexure 4 PROPRIETY TAX RECEIPT DATED 15-2-2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a civil suit to declare a Land Tribunal purchase certificate void as fraudulently obtained is maintainable despite the bar under Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act?
Whether the plaint contained sufficient pleadings of fraud in obtaining the purchase certificate?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Makeeriyamnal C.K. Thankam Thamburatty and Others v. Kayyath Moolayil Ravindran and OthersRelied on¶9
Makeeriyamnal C.K. Thankam Thamburatty and Others v. Kayyath Moolayil Ravindran and Others, 2009 KHC 1224
Unneema v. Cheriyamu HajiRelied on¶10
Unneema v, Cheriyamu Haji, 2015 (4) KLT 110
7 provisions across 2 enactments
Narayanan (died)
P.N.Prakasan
Sankaran (died)
Omana Ramakrishnan
Peethambaran
Kumari Sivadasan
C.Pratheep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
C.Pratheep Kumar
Parties & counsel
